Talk:Catalytic converter/Archive 1

Source for Cat Theft
and more —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.38.213 (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Maybe we shouldn't tell people HOW to steal CCs? The part about saws and Toyotas should be taken out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.109.226 (talk • contribs).


 * The section is relevant and germane, and it is amply sourced. There is no valid reason to remove it. --Scheinwerfermann 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the value of cutting out a cat for its precious metal. It seems to me that a thief could get a much higher return by selling it to a junkyard as a whole piece, especially if stolen from a new vehicle. --207.154.79.131 (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Got a Link
From the Criticisms of catalytic converters secion

however anyone making this argument should consider the California Air Resources Board reports on improvements in Air Quality that have been achieved over the last 30 years

Neat...if this were now it wouldnt make sense to make it so someone can find that report without going to a search engine?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.234.128.56 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

HAHA i totally agree there worth like 1k in $ per a cc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.110.235.22 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Headline text
Comment==

The reference to 14.7 parts 'oxygen' is incorrect. It should read 14.7 parts air. If you do the sum for pure octane, it comes out as air:fuel 15.2 ww.

13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Query==

A three-way catalytic converter has three simultaneous tasks:

1. oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2 2. reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen: NOx → O2 + N2  3. oxidation of hydrocarbons (unburnt fuel) to carbon dioxide and water: CxHy + \left ( x+\frac{y}{4} \right )O2 → xCO2 + \frac{y}{2} H2O

Is number three correct? I do not understand what the person was trying to do.

Yes, they were correct. I work in the catalytic converter industry and while #3 is a bit complex (and I wouldn't have included it because of that) it's spot on. UrbanTerrorist 21:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Corrections
Whoever put this line in - it's wrong:

Toxic exhaust gases such as unburned hydrocarbon (UHC) and carbon monoxide (CO) would not exist if the fuel to energy conversion in the engine were perfect.

Even if combustion was perfect NO nitric oxide and NO2 nitrogen dioxide would still form in the combustion chamber, and need to be removed. Even Hydrogen fueled engines produce NOx. UrbanTerrorist 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

More Corrections
Sorry folks, an Oxygen Sensor does not monitor the amount of oxygen stored in the washcoat. Made a new section called Diagnostics to cover sensors and how they are used, moved the OBD 2 information there. BTW, if anyone has questions in regards to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, or Environment Canada, I may have the answers, and if I don't I have a large number of contacts at all three agencies.

BTW, I'm not that good at HTML, so the new section could use some formatting.

UrbanTerrorist 03:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed some errors in the diagnostic section relating to when a malfunction light will come on, but there's some work still to be done. Specifically, the first paragraph states that diagnostic systems do not store error codes and that shutting off the ignition will clear the codes. This is absolutely not the case for all OBD vehicles, which are the vast majority of emissions diagnostic systems. The error code will be stored until cleared manually, either by a scan tool or disconnecting the battery, or cleared by the computer itself, given that the problem does not reoccur for a certain number of drive cycles depending on the code being thrown. Furthermore, clearing the code manually will reset that monitor's readiness monitor to unready so that people can't just clear all their codes right before they drive into an emissions test and pass a failing car. The states have varying limits on the number of readiness monitors that can be unready, based on the age of the vehicle, if the vehicle is to pass the emissions test 67.175.112.107 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why remove UK regs?
The article was accurate, relevant to people in the UK and dealt with the regulations reguarding Cats in the UK? How was the reversion justifiable? TiHead 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your additions dealt with a local jurisdiction's periodic motor vehicle inspections, an issue only tangentially related to catalytic converters per se. The relevance of this information to UK readers isn't at issue. Its inclusion in this particular article was improper by dint of being off topic. Please add your information to an article on emission testing or PMVI or the UK MoT. If no such article exists, be bold and start one! Scheinwerfermann 03:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Other types of catalytic converter
This all assumes that Catalytic Converter is a term sepcific to motor vehicles, and it's not. I first came across them in nitric acid production as at the following link, so I'd claim this isn't a well rounded discussion of Catalytic Converters. Chann94501 17:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cheresources.com/nitricacid.shtml


 * Yep, certainly catalytic conversion is not limited to auto exhaust cleanup. That is the most widespread application of the technology, though, so this article does address the query most people would have when seeking it out. Nevertheless, there should probably be some disambiguation and coverage of other catalytic conversion processes. Scheinwerfermann 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer review: CC History
Would be improved by a history section covering the CC's invention; who invented it & who holds patents & when; when the CC was first proposed and what breakthroughs had to be made to create it. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Trinity College definitly did not invent the catalytic converter, but neither did Corning. What Corning invented was a ceramic honeycomb monolith 'brick' which is used to support the washcoat and precious metal catalyst. Prior to this invention, people tried to use pellet catalysts of the type used in industrial applications but these failed because they tended to vibrate in the can and break into little chips which plugged up the system and the pressure drop became too high. The honeycomb support invented by Corning overcomes this problem by providing a single large part consisting of thousands of small parallel channels into which the exhaust gas can flow. Pressure drop in this system is very low and because of the all one-piece construction there is no attrition leading to chips. I am not sure who 'invented' the first modern catalytic converter - it was a collaborative effort for sure - the pioneers were Corning, Ford, GM, and Chrysler, and the major catalyst companies Johnson Matthey and Engelhard (now part of BASF). Other companies such as UOP may have had a hand in it too.Chem engineer 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Q:
An installer told me that replacement automotive converters have a protective coating on the catalyst itself (for storage), and that the converter will only become fully operational after some 100 mi./160km of driving. Could this be true? Thx. Wikiak 05:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll find out. UrbanTerrorist 01:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Replacement catalytic converters DO NOT have a protective coating. However ceramic core converters which use an Intumescent Mat as a packaging material do output some rather unusual Hydrocarbons until the mat is cured by heat. Note that the mat cannot be cured until after the core is packaged, and that while it can be cured in a kiln, in most applications it is cured on the vehicle, which is less expensive. UrbanTerrorist 22:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree that intumescent mats are used and the car company relies on the customer's initial use of the vehicle to heat up the mat. In doing so, the mat expands irreversibly and this holds the converter in the can. Various binders in the mat may volatilize. Also, sometimes the catalyst coater will attach an adhesive paper label to the converter for production and sales identification. The paper label burns off during use, and there may be a smell for a brief time until everything is burned off.Chem engineer 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes. I replaced my catalytic converter. It had a thin film from manufacturing, which had to be burned off (producing white smoke for the first 50 miles or so). Because it's an automotive item, they felt no need to remove any manufacturing grease/residue.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.71.168 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This section doesn't make sense
So I've removed it, until someone can provide a citation:

Early three-way catalytic converters utilized an air tube between the first part of the converter (the NOx part) and the second part, which is virtually unchanged from earlier two-way catalytic converters. This tube was fed by either an air pump (derived from the earlier air injection reactor (AIR) systems) or by a pulse air system. The extra oxygen was used to offset the less precise control of earlier systems by providing the oxygen for the catalyst's oxidizing reaction. The first section was still prone to difficulties on lean conditions with too much oxygen for the NOx reduction to be complete, but the second section always had oxygen available. These systems also commonly included an upstream air injector, either a modified AIR system or another opening in the manifold, to add oxygen into the system to burn the extra-rich mixture used in a cold engine and to allow the additional burning to happen as close to the converter as possible to heat it up to operating temperature quickly.

Newer systems use several techniques to avoid the air tubes. They provide a constantly varying mixture that quickly cycles lean and rich mixtures to keep the first catalyst (NOx) from becoming oxygen loaded and the second catalyst sufficiently oxidized, which is less of a concern due to the oxygen created in the first section. They also utilize several oxygen sensors to monitor the exhaust, at least one before the catalytic converter for each bank of cylinders and one after the converter. Newer systems also often have several units mounted along the pipe to provide different functions rather than one monolithic system. UrbanTerrorist 01:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Air Tubes
The air tube data was taken from general experience, but could be referenced by picking up many automotive manuals covering cars from the 1980's.

I am not an "expert" on these cars, but have had experience working on several of them, and the function is quite apparent.

Trinity College
As far as I can see, the reference to catalytic converters being invented at Trinity College is false, and likely an advertisement by some alumnus. I think the better source is Corning:


 * http://www.invent.org/Hall_Of_Fame/170.html
 * http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=2547

I will proceed to delete the reference.

John Sheu 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Trinity College definitly did not invent the catalytic converter, but neither did Corning. What Corning invented was a ceramic honeycomb monolith 'brick' which is used to support the washcoat and precious metal catalyst. Prior to this invention, people tried to use pellet catalysts of the type used in industrial applications but these failed because they tended to vibrate in the can and break into little chips which plugged up the system and the pressure drop became too high. The honeycomb support invented by Corning overcomes this problem by providing a single large part consisting of thousands of small parallel channels into which the exhaust gas can flow. Pressure drop in this system is very low and because of the all one-piece construction there is no attrition leading to chips. I am not sure who 'invented' the first modern catalytic converter - it was a collaborative effort for sure - the pioneers were Corning, Ford, GM, and Chrysler, and the major catalyst companies Johnson Matthey and Engelhard (now part of BASF). Other companies such as UOP may have had a hand in it too.Chem engineer 19:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "As far as I can see", indeed. Very little, evidently. You arrogant little men. Naysayers and opiners with nothing but an internet connection and an opinion are a dime a dozen. The deleted section did not claim the college invented anything, but that it was originally invented there. All your dense and irrelevant blather aside, there have certainly been a lot of innovations and improvements since the original idea, but as with anything else, there was one original theorist, and he was employed by Trinity College at the time he did so. Can either of you keyboarded monkeys offer anything that definitively disproves this?


 * If there is one rule most of the arrogant fools who waste their lives typing on the internet ought to observe, it is this: If you don't know for sure, keep your stupid mouth shut. 69.30.112.12 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 69.30.112.12, please refrain from personal attacks. It looks like you could do with a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Please remember that as a wikipedia editor, you are required to keep your behaviour civil. Namecalling and invective do nothing to improve the project. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Houdry is credited with conceiving of and inventing the catalytic converter starting in the late 1940's. https://www.chemheritage.org/classroom/chemach/petroleum/houdry.html  This is documented in his US Patent 2,742,437 and the Continuation in Part record associated with it. Mr Houdry was educated in France. Chem engineer (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Q: Apparent contradiction
The "Regulations" section states: Note that no jurisdiction has specific legislation mandating the use of catalytic converters, however with spark ignition engines a catalytic converter is usually the only practical way to meet regulatory requirements. [Emphasis mine] While the "Criticisms of catalytic converters" section states: Catalytic converters have proven to be reliable devices and have been successful in reducing noxious tailpipe emissions. However, they have two adverse environmental impacts in use (ignoring the pollution caused in their manufacture, which would not exist were they not mandated) [Emphasis mine]

I am not an expert in this area so any clarification would be appreciated. Hope this is helpful - this is my first post to a talk page and I have read and am trying to comply with wiki guidlines but my appologies in advance if I have missed something. Charles T. Victorian 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

SCR with additive
The article mentions the SCR and nox trap devices. It also explains why you have to be in rich conditions to purge the Nox. But what about the system using an additive to purge the trap like Bosch Denotronic system on the new mercedes E320 CDI bluetec? Does this system also need stochiometric proportion to convert the Nox? 193.194.132.44 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the SCR systems use injection of an aqueous solution of urea which decomposes above a certain temperature to form ammonia in the exhaust system. The ammonia reacts with adsorbed NOx on the SCR catalyst to reduce it to N2 and water. This reaction can occur under any exhaust atmosphere. Diesel engines operate under very lean conditions and this is one of the major applications for SCR. There is another NOx conversion technology called LNT "lean nox traps". In these systems NO2 is chemically adsorbed with a catalyst/adsorbent material which converts the NO2 to a metal nitrate. Eventually the adsorbent in fully saturated and must be regenerated. The exhaust is made rich in hydrocarbons and these reduce the metal nitrate to the oxidized metal and the nitrate is reduced to N2 in a step called LNT regeneration. Once regenerated, the LNT can adsorb more NOX and the cycle continually repeats itself.

Both SCR and LNT are being developed for diesel and for lean-burn gasoline engines.Chem engineer 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

CO2 scavenging
CO2 is scavengable. Seems to me that there is a guy out there thinking of building a 'fake tree forest' with the concept of scavenging CO2 from the air and then moving it to underground caverns. My concept is to do some scavenging right at the source: After the catalytic converter. One would have to find a way to have Calcium Hydroxide (or similar) available to the hot gases. The temperatures are high enough to cause 100% precipitation of Calcium Carbonate, using up to 100% of the exhaust CO2 in the process. Drawbacks would have to do with maintenance of the unit. Feedstock of Calcium Hydroxide and removal of Calcium Carbonate after the scavenging process. Fake tree home page is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2784227.stm (Davydahl 09:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Do you have any figures for how much fossil fuel would be needed for calcining the Limestone to Calcium Oxide, and where does the CO2 from the calcining process go? Shjacks45 (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

CH4 production
CH4 is Methane gas. As it is the prime component of Natural Gas used to heat our homes it is definitely flamable. With the byproducts of combustion being water and CO2 CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_gas) If one were to install an exhaust reburner before a Catalytic Converter one would burn off this gas and perhaps set up some other things to deal better with the oxides of nitrogen. I have read that controling oxygen availabilty during burning will also control the oxide of Nitrogen produced in the reaction. Drawbacks would be a serious heat source that would need to be dealt with (800+ kJ/mole). The fact that CH4 will only burn in concentrations of 5 - 15% also could cause problems. Perhaps using the heat to prewarm the fuel may increase fuel efficicencies in lower temperature climes. The 'extra heat could also be used as an extra heater in colder climates such as Central North US and Canada where temps of -20C (-4F) are not out of the ordinary. Davydahl 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban of Nickel in the EU
The use of Nickel in cats is probably illegal due to the possible formation of Ni(CO)4, not some Nickel "hydrate".

Thanks for deleting environmental infromation User:Anastrophe
Long-term use of catalytic converters increases roadside levels of platinium between 8-10x normal background levels, leading to increased rates of asthma, and is an allergen. Uptake by plants and food-crops is still to be studied. citing is a bitch, can't find the exact study by Clive Neal of Notre Dame ~ender 2008-02-11 02:23:AM MST


 * You may consider citing a bitch, but it's required anyhow. Remember, it doesn't matter what you or I know (or think we know, or vaguely recall hearing), because the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia articles is not "truth", but verifiability. If such a study did indeed come from anyone at Notre Dame, it'll be easy to find. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages properly. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Convential spark ignition engine section
I restored the convential spark ignition engine section, because I think it holds valuable information. The section may repeat some info from previous paragraphs, but it also enhances by adding additional details, like closed-loop engines, formation of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. In my opinion, editing the section to make it shorter is acceptable, but the mentioned information should be kept in some form, since I think that they are relevant aspects of the article. Polymerbringer (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Years?
"Rises in metal costs inside the United States during recent years"... which years are recent years? 2007? 2002? 1997? --Davidkazuhiro (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lifetime of Catalytic Converters
I have read that a catalytic converter is likely to last as long as my car.

Does the catalytic converter degrade over time, or will it last forever if well-cared for?

For example, in Australia the average age of a car is 10 years, with 1 in 4 being greater than 16 years.

I believe that lifetime issues are important enough to be added to the article, whatever the facts cojoco (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)If a catalytic coverter, is supposed to remove toxic fumes from the smoke, then why are vehicles still the main cause for nitrogen emmisions, which cause acid rain.